A conference on the Shroud of Turin, organized by Bob Rucker, will
take place in the state of Washington in the summer of 2017, July 19 -
22. For more information on paper submission and attending, please
consult the web site.

The complete underside of the Shroud of Turin had been hidden from
observation for more than four centuries until the summer of 2002,
when the Holland cloth was unstiched during the restauration of the Shroud.

While the underside was completely accessible, it was photographed,
which provided the first ever complete photographs of the underside of the
Shroud. These photographs were published in a few books, in particular
by Opera Diocesana Preservazione Fede (ODPF).

The following photograph (Figure 1) presents the middle section of the
underside of the Shroud where the bloodstains from the back of the head
and torso, the face, and front torso, are visible. There is no
perceptible image as can be seen on the well-known front side. Some
researchers claimed that a dim image of the face appears on this
underside, but this is controversial. Figure 2 shows a close-up
view of the face region of the underside.

Such a photograph allows a deeper study of how the image was formed
or not formed. For example, the obvious observation is that no
perceptible image can be seen on the underside, which entails that if
paint was ever used to produce the image on the front side, it could
not have been painted the usual way, because paint would have
transferred to the underside by capilarity. Another example is the
amount of blood transferred on the underside from the bloodstains in
the hair region of the front side. No major amount can be seen on the
underside, which is coherent with the bloodstains realy coming from
the hair.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Ulysse Chevalier, a French
historian, was involved in the newly created controversy of the first
photographs of the Shroud, taken by Secondo Pia in 1898. He wrote
several history papers and monographs claiming that the Shroud was not
authentic. Ulysse Chevalier was mostly interested by the history of
the Shroud and pay little attention to the physical characteristics of
its image, but in one of his monograph [1](p. 19), he claimed that the
photograph taken by Secondo Pia did not show the correct side because
Chevalier thought that the bloodstains and the hands were
inverted. That is, Secondo Pia would have taken a photograph of the
side that had a dim image, creating its enigmatic appearance, and that
the other side would have a brighter image, which would not have its
enigmatic image and better show that it was a painting. Chevalier's
contention was wrong as the underside has no perceptible
image but mostly only bloodstains.

The Pierpont Morgan Library & Museum in New York City has a large
collection of illuminated manuscripts. Among them is
the manuscript
499, a parchment roll of about 3.3 m long and nine cm wide. Its
skin-side is written in Greek with twenty illuminated miniature scenes
depicting the Legend of King Abgar, its hair-side is a
translation of the Greek text in Arabic with no miniatures, although a
cross is drawn on the hair-side on the segment kept at the University of
Chicago (see below). Its production has been dated in the third quarter of the
fourteenth century, but certainly not later than 1383, because the
author of the Arabic text states that year for his translation. The
roll was an amulet. Originally, it was likely owned by a Byzantine
military officer, then in 1383, owned by a Christian, Suleyman ibn
Sara, because the colophon of the Arabic text says so.

Figure 1 shows the scroll mounted on two custom-made rolls in a
protective case. For its age, the manuscript shows remarkable good
conservation, although the miniatures have lost some paint. The tiny
Greek writing is still crisp and clear, see Figure 2.

As part of the Legend of King Abgar, Christ sends
an image of himself to King Abgar. That image is known as the Image
of Edessa also known as the Mandylion. Actually, the legend evolved
from an image painted by a messenger sent by King Abgar to an image made by Christ
himself. The Mandylion can be seen in several of the miniatures of
M.499. Because this manuscript M.499 was produced after the sack of
Constantinople in 1204, it is almost certain that the artist who
created the miniatures never saw the Mandylion itself. Furthermore,
the manuscript was probably produced in Trebizond, if not, it was in
Constantinople. Actually, one may ask the general question: had any
artist, who reproduced the Mandylion, seen the real Mandylion before
the sack of Constantinople? The answer is likely negative. The many
artistic representations of the Mandylion that we still have today
are probably based on hearsay and on the legend of King
Abgar. Manuscript M.499 would be a documentary evidence supporting
this claim, because we can see in it the typical artistic
reproductions of the Mandylion similar to many others produced
before 1204, yet the artist of M.499 can hardly have seen the real
Mandylion.

The twenty miniatures of M.499
can be seen on the website of the Pierpont Morgan Library. The manuscript is divided in
twenty sections, each with a miniature scene.
In the entire manuscript, four scenes show clearly the
Mandylion, where only the head of Christ is visible, and one scene where the Mandylion is mostly hidden:

In Section 9, Ananias receives the image of Christ on a cloth, i.e., the Mandylion, directly from Christ;

In Section 10, the Mandylion, on its journey from Jerusalem, is temporarily hidden between two bricks;

In Section 11, the Mandylion is being revealed after it was temporarily hidden;

In Section 12, the Mandylion is in a scene of a miraculous healing;

In Section 14, Ananias reveals the Mandylion to King Abgar. See Figure 3.

The roll is incomplete because the beginning segment is missing and
it is kept at the library of the University of Chicago as
manuscript
125. That segment is about 1.7 m long with seven miniatures
representing Mark, Luke, John, Christ, Christ and
the Virgin, the Trinity and David as King of Israel. The Chicago fragment does not contain
any scene involving the Mandylion.

For a good description and analysis of the manuscript M.499, see [1], which has a lengthy bibliography.

The Mandylion/Image of Edessa was most likely a real cloth with an
image of Christ, which is transferred from Edessa to Constantinople in
944. It had been kept in Edessa for many centuries. When the Image of
Edessa arrives in Constantinople, it is kept in the Imperial Palace
and hidden from public view. Its whereabouts is not clear after the
sack of Constantinople in 1204, but it is likely transferred to the
Sainte-Chapelle of Paris in 1241 after Baudoin II, the desperate Latin
Emperor of Constantinople, sold twenty-two relics to King Louis
IX. Indeed, the inventories of the Sainte-Chapelle describe a
reliquary with a face of Christ at the bottom and containing a cloth.

The manuscript “Pour scavoir la verite,” written
around 1525, says that the shroud of Lirey, today the shroud of Turin,
was received from King Philip VI. The simplest explanation for the
provenance of that gift is the Sainte-Chapelle of Paris, because that
is the main repository of the relics of Christ of the King of France.
The only relic of the Sainte-Chapelle of Paris that can correspond to
the shroud of Turin is the Mandylion.

In 2005, Raymond Rogers published, in Thermochimica Acta, a study
of linen fibers from the Shroud. That study concluded that gum Arabic
had been used on the fibers near the radiocarbon dating sample used in
1988 to date the Shroud. The overall conclusion of that study pointed out
that the area around and including that sample was mended or at least
was different from the rest of the Shroud.

More recently, Marco Bella, Luigi Garlaschelli and Roberto
Samperi wrote an editorial paper
criticizing the mass spectrometry analysis of that study, concluding
that no gum Arabic was detected on the fibers but that instead
an unknown contaminant was detected on the sample.

Actually, these criticisms by Bella et al. are misleading, which is
discussed in a short communication just published in
Thermochimica Acta. Its main conclusion is described in the abstract:

In a recent editorial paper of this journal, Bella et al. commented on
the mass spectra analysis done by Rogers, which consisted of two
mass spectra of the pyrolysis of linen fibers from two areas of the
Shroud of Turin. The main conclusion of Bella et al. was “No
diagnostic peak in the pyrolysis mass spectra indicates a significant
difference in the two samples, besides hydrocarbon-derived
contamination. Therefore, none of the presented data supports the
conclusion by Rogers.” We show that the technical analysis of Bella et
al. of the mass spectra is incorrect and that their main conclusion is
unconfirmed, in particular that a “contaminant” would be present on
the second sample analyzed.

The Castle of Ray-sur-SaôneOthon de la Roche and theShroud of Turin

The hypothesis that Othon de la Roche acquired the Shroud of Turin,
during the conquest of Constantinople in 1204, has been proposed for
many centuries. We read that due to its great services during the 4th crusade,
Othon was given the Shroud in 1204, kept it in Athens, and that it was
brought back at the castle of Ray-sur-Saône or to the castle of his father.

But that hypothesis can be shown to be false. The misconception sprang from a
lack of knowledge about the original documentary sources.

The thesis of the Sainte-Chapelle has been proposed by
André-Marie Dubarle and Hilda Leynen to explain the transfer of the
Mandylion from Constantinople to Lirey, which became the Shroud of
Turin. It is a very coherent, direct and well documented
thesis. The thesis is even more coherent when all the inventories of the relics of the
Grande Châsse of the Sainte-Chapelle are carefully
analyzed. I have little doubt that it is the correct basis from which
we can coherently explain the appearance of the Shroud of Turin in
Lirey.

Compared to many other thesis, including the involvement of
Othon de la Roche or the Knights Templar, it is a well documented
thesis with a direct route from Constantinople to Geoffroy de Charny,
who brought the Shroud to Lirey. It is coherent with the statements
made by the canons of Lirey as well as the son and granddaughter of
Geoffroy de Charny. It also explains in a very simple manner the
153-year silence of the Mandylion that became the Shroud of Turin.

It is even hard to believe that such a coherent thesis has been so unfavorably
presented, with so many invalid arguments, since Dubarle and Leynen
described it.

Countess Diane-Régina de Salverte is the last owner of the
castle. Although not stated in the newspaper article (see link above),
the Countess will possibly still live in a part of the castle.

One of the long time ago owner, in the 13th century, of a castle on
the same location was Othon de la Roche who participated in the Fourth
Crusade. Many authors stated that Othon was probably the owner of the
Shroud of Turin while he was Duke of Athens. This possibility is
actually very unlikely because it is based on a manuscript of the 18th
century, kept in the Municipal Archives of Besançon, that has no solid
foundation.

The castle of Ray-sur-Saône is located about 200 km southwest of Lirey
and 50 km north of Besançon. It is often cited in the history of the
Shroud of Turin because it belongs to descendants of Othon de la
Roche, a knight who would have acquired the Shroud during the Fourth
Crusade (1202-1204). The castle houses a copy of the Shroud of Besançon,
which was a partial copy of the Shroud of Turin (ventral part only),
and a small chest that would have been used, so it is said, to bring
the Shroud from Greece to France in the 13th century.

Despite several historical hypotheses of the Shroud that have been
put forward involving Othon de la Roche, it is very unlikely
that Othon had anything to do with the Shroud of Turin. The main
reason for this conclusion is that the seed of all these hypotheses is
the dissertation in favor of the authenticity of the Shroud of
Besançon, written in 1714, contained in the manuscript 826 of the
archives of the Besançon library. That is, all subsequent historical
documents mentioning Othon de la Roche as possibly having owned the
Shroud are based directly or indirectly on that dissertation. But that
dissertation has no solid foundation to state that Othon de la Roche
was involved with any shroud: the dissertation refers to documents
that never mention that Othon received a shroud or owned any
shroud. In other words, the author of that dissertation made up a
story about Othon de la Roche receiving a shroud during the Fourth
Crusade. The book Le Saint Suaire de Besançon
discusses these hypotheses and has a complete transcription of the
manuscript 826 (in French).

Moreover, the small chest still at the castle of Ray-sur-Saône
appears unlikely to have been used to bring any shroud back from
Greece. There is no written tradition from de la Roche family, or its
descendants, mentioning that such a chest was used. Several people,
including myself, tried to discuss this tradition with the last owner
of the castle, the countess Diane Régina de Salverte, but no such
discussion was possible. It is difficult to date the chest as no
authorization would be given to do so.

It is also odd that the copy of
a shroud in the castle is not of the Shroud of Turin but of the Shroud
of Besançon, which is not what one would do to honor this incredible
fact that the Shroud of Turin was brought from Constantinople by one
of your ancestors. If this copy is used, it is most likely because it
is based on the story coming from the manuscript 826 of Besançon,
which means that this copy is not based on family tradition but rather
from the writing of Dom Chamard, which in turn is based on the
dissertation in favor of the Shroud of Besançon of manuscript 826,
which we know is totally unreliable.

And any hypothesis stating that the Shroud came to Lirey through
Jeanne de Vergy (second wife of Geoffroy de Charny), who would have
been a descendant of Othon de la Roche, is fraught with other major
issues. For example, the receipt of Humbert de Villersexel, given in
1418 to the canons of the collegiate church of Lirey, states clearly
that the reliquary containing the Shroud had the coat of arms of de
Charny, not of de Vergy. The son and the granddaughter of Geoffroy de
Charny also stated clearly that the Shroud was from Geoffroy de
Charny, not from Jeanne de Vergy.

The castle was transformed several times and even, due to the Ten
Years war, it was destroyed then rebuilt. The castle used to have up to
twelve towers, but now has only two. The countess Diane Régina de
Salverte still lives at the castle but occupying only a part of it
because the ownership of the castle is in the process of being
transferred to the French administration (Département de la
Haute-Saône). Visits, for the general public, of the interior of the
castle have been suspended until this transfer is completed.

The first ostentations of the Shroud of Turin in the Western world
was in Lirey, a hamlet 16 km southwest of Troyes, the nearest large
city. Lirey is still today a hamlet with about fourty houses and a 19th
century chapel located on the same piece of land where the first
chapel was built in 1353. The first ostentation of the Shroud would
have been around 1355, but we do not know the exact year. In 1418, the
Shroud leaves the chapel and Lirey to be kept at the castle of
Montfort under the protection of Humbert de Villersexel, the second
husband of Marguerite de Charny, granddaughter of Geoffroy de Charny.
The Shroud never came back to Lirey although the canons
of Lirey tried many times over a century to regain the Shroud. A
second chapel was inaugurated in 1525, which was demolished in 1828. A
third chapel was built at the end of the 19th century. The following
photographs show the inside and outside of this third chapel at Lirey.

In 1353, the chapel was supervised by a small group of canons, the
collegiate, who lived nearby. In the following photo, on the right, is
the site where the collegiate building was located (the chapel, not
visible, is on the left). Notice the black small tower. It probably
dates back to the 16th century. It houses pigeons that were probably used for
communication.

The castle (or maison forte) of Geoffroy de Charny was further back
on a small slightly elevated piece of land encircled by a protective
trench filled with water. The trench is still visible today and water
is still keeping the visitors away. The collegiate and the castle no
longer exist and their pieces of land are now private. Thanks to Alain
Hourseau who made the appropriate arrangements to access the site
where the castle used to be located. The following photos show the
trench filled with water and the castle site filled with trees.

The Shroud of Besançon was as popular as the Shroud of Turin
for almost three centuries. It disappeared in 1794 during the French
Revolution.

The 18th century manuscript 826 from the archives of the
Bibliothèque de Besançon contains two
dissertations, one for its authenticity and one against it. The
dissertation for its authenticity has a proof of the origin of the
Shroud of Besançon from Constantinople, but not only that proof
has been critised by many researchers, its use to prove an historical
route for the Turin Shroud, based on Othon de la Roche, is shown to be
highly doubtful. Indeed, this dissertation, and its proof, was cited
numerous times by scholars and historians of the Shroud of Turin.

This newly published book presents a complete transcription of both
dissertations. The transcription of the first dissertation, for the
authenticity, is new because this dissertation was never published
before. A French description, from the back cover, is given below. An
electronic version of this book (for phones, tablets, computers) is also available.